Black and Blue: Lives Matter

A recent statistic making the press is that black men are 18 1/2 times more likely to shoot a cop than a cop is to shoot a black man.

   My first response, which is not the first question one should ask, was that the 18 are not given a badge and being paid with tax money, sworn to uphold the Constitution and the law in their office. Nor have we elected their bosses. But the point is simply this: The nineteenth black guy is not a “black guy” under the U. S. constitution, but a citizen, and this is what people mean when they complain about “racial profiling.” He is the black cop on his way home from work, the black minister giving his life to help the city, the doctor who may well save one’s life, if not become director of housing one day.

   No, the first question I should have asked is this: How many more times is a “white” guy likely to shoot a cop than to be shot by a cop. What? No Stats?

   What affirmative action was trying to address was the systematic destruction of a people by the years of slavery- the breaking of the black families and the discouragement of education- followed by the effect of years of segregation and plain meanness that humans practice toward one another given the power to do so. That is not a racial thing, but a human thing. If affirmative action is not quite equality, and not quite constitutional, the question is what can we do to heal the wound of the lash that once drew and may again draw blood by the sword drop for drop. Indeed, the white guy too is not a “white guy,” but just an applicant. Indeed, to list people by race for the purposes of affirmative action was a horendous error, as will be demonstrated when the racists take office, if it has not already been demonstrated by what they have been allowed to do.

   That ninteenth guy is he on whom the solution to our greatest domestic national problem depends. There are things the black minister can do that no one else can do, and black politician who recognizes that is our patriotic duty to avoid corruption. Government in geneal can provide equipment and secure the oppotunity to do, but cannot do it.

   How many times more likely is a black man to be shot unjustly than a white man? How many more times likely is a cop to not be prosecuted when mudering a black man, or even genuinely accidentally shooting him? Did I overtax or burn out your stats function? How many times more likely are the mad to be shot than to shoot? How many times is a man moe likely to be punished for than listened to for telling the truth?

   There are things too about this statistic that are difficult to say. How many more time is a black likely to encounter criminal police than is a white guy?

  There are things accessible to common sense, not to mention intelligence, that defy statistical analysis, if only fo practical reasons- one cannot get good stats if they deny that murders are murders, and deny that injustice is injustice in any paticula matter.


And Blue

God only knows its not what

We would choose

To do.

                                                   -Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon

We Are Supposed To Be Afraid To Speak / One Man on a Barbed Wire Fence

   The interference on the search engines when one looks up J. Alex Halderman is quite interesting. He is the U of M computer geek who wrote an article in the New Yorker saying that because of the demonstrated Russian action and intents and the nature of computer security, there is plenty of reason for a recount of the votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

   On Yahoo today, there were adds and right wing rants cluttering the search so badly I could not find my way to his site, though I made it yesterday. Whoever is controlling my computer will not let me use Google at all, for the past two months, Microsoft having got the advantage and bumped them. When I look up mmcdonald77 on Yahoo, someone has chosen the most unflattering categories from my list, which they do have permission to publish that way to begin. “Foreign” misspelled, “Drugs” “Folk Love” – two of these are category title errors WordPress will not allow me to erase. These are probably the same as the people who listed a two year cancelled Reddit website with pictures of buds. Seems my writing on why the law against marijuana is unconstitutional pissed off some fascist, who does this in lieu of an argument to the contrary.

   We are supposed to be afraid to speak. They can find us and ruin us. Mr. Bright Bart has made a profession of this sort of thing. With the radical, Orwellian world of spy-marketing, where nothing is private, we are supposed to be too afraid to oppose the rising tyranny. My response is, ok, you want to know my private thoughts: I believe my ex-fiancé was set on me by my own government in order to spy on and perhaps blacklist and ruin me. While at first I was cautious, speaking only to my elected representatives, I have of late gone public with the story a bit more, though no one cares or understands, and it is still my fault. I have asked my representative to ask these people to describe everything they did to me through the course of my education and following, and even to have the president order them to tell the truth, since they claim the executive privilege to lie, even to Congress. You want the private things to be public, you will get them, all of them. I want oversight, accountability and meaningful recourse, which would mean that Congress must know and care when they destroy someone with their Snowden style spying, some people would be subpoenaed and perhaps go to jail, and I would be compensated in proportion to the damages, and I don’t have to limp around wounded like an accident victim in court in a neck brace, but one can imagine the effects if what I say is true. I would describe in court what I think was done to me and why I think it was done, and even the direction in which to look for who did it, if two subpoenas did not answer that question. But literally no one cares. No one can even understand the scenario, let alone believe me. But what is certain, again, is that if these things did occur, absolutely nothing would be done about it, as though this prostitution-spying were just fine with everyone.

   So perhaps we ought have been afraid to study, especially politics, if we wanted to have friends, career and family. But I would not change my studies one bit, so that some ONE would still be free to scream bloody murder to my fellows, who stare back blank faced, while a tyrant ascends the throne of the presidency of the United States. Gee, how could such a thing happen?

   If someone is messing with Haldeman, confirming our suspicions about the election, Russian influence and the likelihood that the election was indeed thrown by the Russians to advance the fascist agenda, no one cares, and that is how this is happening. I called my Senator, but the assistant is as usual dumbfounded by the simplest things. I would tell the FBI, but they would laugh and hang up on me again. At least they don’t come shoot people as do the police. And if they did, no one would care, anymore than they cared when the man in St. Paul was shot reaching for his ID according to command (resulting in five police deaths in Dallas) or when they shot John Berry in LA. I am afraid we are getting what we deserve, if political liberty and all common concern are this dead.

   I am supposed now to be afraid to speak because of Trump and Bright Bart, the villain he holds as right hand man. Perhaps they are not afraid because they think we would not turn the spy-tech on them, when they are suspected of TREASON. I’ll bet they are more afraid of testifying under oath than I am to speak, and if they are not, perhaps they should be. Since this won’t happen, I will help the reporters, beginning with, “Mr. Trump, did someone promise you the election? Mr. Bright Right, appearing even as an angel of light, are you in league with the Russians, perhaps because you are anti-gay and “White?” If it were I that were commanding the press, it would be he that would need to empty his pants! We are supposed to be terrified by their anger, while they growl fearless.

But let us take courage, and pride, as Bono says, “in the name of Love.”

One man on a barbed wire fence.

Imprimis Critique: Edward Erler on Who We Are As A People

   The Democrats do seem to have had some weaknesses on the question of citizenship and the Syrian refugees, at least in clarifying their position. The obvious solution is, much as Edward Erler says, to provide a place, money and protection to Syrian refugees in some nation with whom Syrians are not at war, if only to get them settled before the astronomical time that vetting will take. But, just as, were it left to the Republicans we would have no health care at all for the poor, even so, if it were left to them, we would not do a thing for any of the Syrian refugees. We would stand by and let little girls and old men be killed in a war that we had more to do with making than they did. Indeed, foreigners do not have the rights of American citizens, but who we are as a people says that they have human rights. Those who do not know this do not understand that second sentence of our Declaration.

   Granting these points, the Erler article is the third disturbing Imprimis article out of the last four. I keep saying that when we focus on jobs and technology as the goals of education, we get a generation that does not know what is wrong with electing tyrants and staffing offices with white supremacists. I do not think affirmative action is equality either, but the solution was once to become a Republican, not a Nazi. We used to wonder, regarding the Holocaust, “How Could this happen?” In the best educated nation in the history of the world, perhaps, and surely the most “enlightened,” the most influenced by modern science. Wonder no more, but only look around you. Claremont and Imprimis were once the bastions of an education that understood liberty and classical ethics and nobility. Replace their aristocracy with ethics based on race purity, and they hardly notice. I went to school with the same professors with whom the editor of Imprimis went to school. We do not believe in diversity as a commitment nor in ethical relativism, and we can smell a Nazi. Incidentally, these professors do not care if a student of theirs was spied upon, blacklisted and given a prostitute for a fiance as a result of studying with them, as does appear to be the case. No one cared nor cares, because they, with a few exceptions like Thomas G. West, do not believe in or teach the Bill of Rights.

   Mr. Erler has written a book on the Founders and immigration, and can be expected to be an expert. Nations must have borders. So become a Republican. The Nazis are using the Republican arguments to justify a swing to the extreme right. The argument of Mr Erler is about to be used to deport some 2-3 million persons who we are told are “criminal illegal” immigrants. We are to imagine drug gang leaders, not the parents of children who are American Citizens. Two to Three Million is about 1% of the American population, one of every one hundred of the people you have seen today. Our deportations and the vigor of I.C.E. have not been lax under the Obama administration, if some fine tuning is needed. But that is a poor excuse for what will be a Trail of Tears, just to let us know that our tyranny has indeed arrived. Erler’s arguments do not comprehend the difference between liberty and tyranny.

   He blames Islamic terrorism for the unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment. If we increase immigration, it will require “the closer monitoring of the private lives of all Americans.” Again, I believe my former fiance was set on me due to proximity in my education especially to the CIA, and none of my former professors care in the least, even enough to join Congress in raising the question of whether this is who we are. It happened before 9/11, when we worried not about the Syrians but about the Russians, those very white guys Donney P.E.Trumpet now considers so admirable. We always did admire mobsters, and these people know our weaknesses better than we do. Are you able to get enough oxy for your pain? Surely you can trust your doctor and the shareholders of the drug companies! Hey, Erler is out in California, where they just legalized weed. At least now he might avoid becoming an oxy-heroin addict, or perhaps a public shooter due to anti-depressants, since those authorities know the good for him. Surely, though, he would obey every unconstitutional law even in private, especially regarding speech and religion, when they try to legislate those healthy beliefs they were once content to teach by consent. He would surely obey if they attempted to silence his teaching against “diversity” and “tolerance,” if only they had legally determined that his theorizing were destructive of the public good or public happiness.

   We are told that the pursuit of Happiness included “The idea that every right had a corresponding duty or obligation,” an idea “essential to the social compact understanding of the American founding.” That is why, when it states the purpose of government, the Declaration reads: “To secure these rights and enforce these duties…” Rather, rights are given precedence over duties because a large nation cannot but be ignorant of the highest good and hence incapable of legislating regarding “private pleasures or imagined pleasures.” The pursuit of Happiness is a right, and rights take precedence over duties, certainly in the modern state due to ignorance, but also, for Jefferson, even in the ancient polis wherever wisdom does not in fact rule. Otherwise, Nazism and Islamo-fascism or Christian fascism might be constitutional. But they are not constitutional, and neither is the new Trump tyranny, except that we must give him a chance and abide by the law and the elections until he commits an impeachable offence or indeed institutes a government that in the fundamental ways fails to “secure these rights.”Socrates too probably could be said to have taught that it is unjust for the city to suppress the pursuit of wisdom, or even the life of the light of the mind for every man. Hence, if one is not violating the rights of another, including the human rights of the stranger or sojourner, government is to leave them alone. “Whatever is (deemed) destructive of the public good or public happiness” indeed cannot be proscribed. “To secure these rights, governments were instituted among men…And whenever it fails to “secure these rights, it is their right, it is their duty to abolish that government.” And indeed, as the sun is setting, I do not suggest we wait for a very long train of abuses.

   No, Mr. Erler, we are not willing to tolerate those pledged to kill us and destroy our way of life, and, if you will remember, that is why we fought the Nazis in World War II and endured the Cold war. God forbid we admit aliens bent upon destroying our way of life. We indeed have enough Nazis from Germany and Mobsters from Russia, though we do not yet have enough white guys! Those white guys killed, murdered, about one hundred million of their fellow citizens, one million per year when their nations were not even involved in civil wars. Our educated elites seem indeed as oblivious as theirs were. Oh, but do make it a point that by 2040, whites will no longer be a majority in America, and just forget to figure in the fact that we White-Anglo-Saxon Protestants mysteriously stopped reproducing.

   Indeed, our constitution does not forbid us from denying admittance to Nazis and Satanists, even if domestically it is unconstitutional to forbid any religion, until it violates the rights of another. One can see the trouble we will get into if we combine Erler’s understanding with the error of Andrew C. McCarty about Islam, identifying with fascism, much as the Jews mis-identified the Inquisition and even the Nazis with Christianity. Again, we are dependent upon the genuine Muslims to penetrate the Islamo-fascists. The Imprimis error, published for 3.5 million conservatives, sets us into a war we do not need and may well lose, against 1.9 Billion Muslims with whom we share the belief in the God of Abraham, charity, chastity, justice, and indeed the rejection of compulsion in matters of religion. The Republicans are now closer to Sharia law and what is called “theocracy” than are most Muslims.

   Indeed, borders are a problem for the good Samaritan, the doctors without borders, Dorothy from Oz, and anyone who cannot rest content with the artificial barriers between people taken as fundamental. We just do not want to be the bricks in your wall.

   As I have told a relative who is a Trump supporter, prepare your grandchildren, as brownshirts, for war, and prepare to receive them home in a box, because that is the choice you are making. Surely ISIS does not appear to be able defeat us, but Putin has been trying to get us bogged down in the Middle East so that he can kill my relatives over there in the Ukraine, and Obama has wisely resisted. Trump has already fallen into his trap. Putin and others will continue to lead Trump along like a bull by the nose ring, luring him into trap after trap by such weaknesses as the love of money. Oh yes, and the love of power to which, when he gets that surge on January 21st, he will be a neophyte.

P.S. I am most disappointed in my Conservative professors and their schools for not understanding tyranny when it appears right a front of them. I offered to write and study on this topic for peanuts, but the Earhart Foundation turned down my requests for grants, which were uniquely not supported, as part of my blacklisting. I would have written on the cause in the soul of this and other forms of tyranny, and can only say, “ok then, what is the cause of Twentieth Century Totalitarianism?” Give your highest and your best account, perhaps that of Allan Bloom, which cannot distinguish fascism from Christianity, focusing on “political idealism” as that involved in not being able to imagine that the Republic and the best regime could be anything other than a literal blueprint for political action. My essay would have had a few spelling errors, and, as new thought, may have been difficult to clearly state, but, unlike your Machiavellians, at least I would be able to talk.

Eric Lichtblau Discusses Surveillance on NPR’s Fresh Air

   It is very nice to know that the FBI is now unlimited in setting undercover agents on absolutely anyone, due to that nice secret FISA “court.” The Justice department and the agencies think that they do not even need a warrant, say, to commit rape for the purposes of surveillance, as I believe occurred in my own case. Everyone agrees that such things are being done, though if one asks that a particular instance be looked into, nothing will be done, and our representatives are simply intimidated. The agencies are free to stage any scene, long or short term. We consider this to be a violation of liberty which indeed requires a warrant. Again, I believe my former fiance was a person set on me due to proximity to the CIA in my education, and no one cares or will do anything about it. Billions of dollars are spent turning one third of America into spies upon another third, and this is just fine with the majority. Nothing is spent repairing damages, and these criminals, who violate our fundamental law, are never held accountable: They just keep ascending, say, to positions where they might use their practice at psychological torture. To us they say: “If you let us rape and blacklist that one person, we will keep you safe from nuclear attack and terrorism, but if you do not allow us to suspend the Bill of Rights we are sworn to uphold, why, there are just no guarantees.

   Again, I want Congress to ask, and those involved to be required to tell the truth regarding everything, now, that was ever done to me in my education and following, because it destroyed my career and chance to have a family, and was for thirty years a kind of blacklisting and psychological torture. It is likely that I did not please a professor who was also an undercover agent, or that my father was slandered by Michigan and Washtenaw County police, or that I angered the cops when I protested about weed and a woman was set on the protest, or had a Russian friend in college, or did not please the Catholic orthodoxy at my schools, or wore my hair too long, or expressed libertarian cynicism, or perhaps expressed that fourth assertion of the second sentence of the Declaration, which says it is our right and duty to overthrow our government when it ceases to secure these rights. And we will ask all these cops, too, do you believe that assertion, or not? Do you uphold that Declaration, and would rebel against tyranny if it were established over our land in subversion of our Constitution? Perhaps they can get themselves on the list, even for swearing to uphold the Constitution.

   Eric Lichtblau did not discuss the use of women or the imitation of love in spying, as this is just too sensitive yet to discuss, and of course, we do not want to reveal their Machiavellian methods to the enemy. We are a half step from genuine domestic torture, because hey, you know, one just can never be too sure.

Marijuana legalization is Blocked from the Ballot in Michigan

The 1986 policy used to block the petition has NEVER BEFORE BEEN USED.

This is why we need a Supreme Court decision declaring the prohibition of Marijuana unconstitutional. The prohibition itself leads to the violation of the constitution in countless other ways, and assures that money will flow to organized crime. All we need do is obey our constitution to cut the “war on drugs” in half overnight. Common sense, rather than special interest inspired regulation of genuine commerce would then have to be enacted. An example is that one ought not use carcinogenic chemicals in growing medicinal weed for sale. But again, the states never gave the federal government the power to prohibit growing ones own weed and smoking it. The federal government simply took this power, and justified it on the basis of their power to tax and regulate commerce, which are among their enumerated powers. They had to change the constitution to prohibit alcohol, and even then never prohibited making ones own beer and drinking it at home. The prohibition is a constitutional absurdity that has perverted our public offices beyond belief and in numerous ways. Only people who do not understand the issue, or else lie, are permitted to hold public offices. So we have cultivated liars and corruption in our polity, and all we have to do to be rid of this corruption is, like Dorothy, click our heels and obey our Constitution.

The following post was sent out by MI Legalize:

MILegalize has filed a 48-page, six-count complaint and 26-page emergency motion against various agencies of the State of Michigan for refusing to count the 354,000 signatures submitted by MILegalize to place the Marijuana Legalization, Regulation, and Economic Stimulus Act on the November 2016 ballot.

The State defendants are using a never-before utilized 1986 policy as an excuse not to count the signatures. This policy would require MILegalize to collect almost double the amount of signatures required to make the ballot by requiring affidavits from every signor of the petition whose signature was more than 180 days old- 200,000+ people- or, local clerks could certify the signatures as valid.
But that doesn’t work for a lot of reasons: local clerks have no legal obligation to verify the signatures, they have never done it before, have never received any training or money to do so, and even the Bureau of Elections stated clerks did not have to verify the signatures.
For these reasons, and more, the 1986 policy is impossible to comply with– they may as well have asked MILegalize to turn in a unicorn or find Bigfoot to qualify for the ballot.
The MILegalize legal team, which consists of six attorneys working on the case in consultation with many more attorneys behind the scenes, prepared a suit which MILegalize filed which seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the state from using the 1986 policy; it asks the Court to declare the policy and two other election laws as unconstitutional; and asks the Court to order the Bureau of Elections to begin counting MILegalize’s signatures.
The case was filed in Michigan’s Court of Claims on June 17th, and MILegalize is currently waiting on the State’s reply or for the Court to issue an emergency ruling.
Rest assured, MILegalize will fight for the inclusion of every valid Michigan voter who signed the petition. We are fighting for more than just better cannabis laws, we are fighting for the heart and soul of our democracy. We will not quit.
At the same time we engage in legal action to protect the rights of Michigan voters, we continue to campaign for the November election and need your help educating Michigan voters about the initiative. Our enemies may be trying to keep us bogged down in court so the public does not get informed of the details of the campaign as much as they would if we had already qualified.
A typical statewide ballot campaign requires $3-$10 million dollars for media advertising and get-out-the-vote resources. MILegalize is not a typical campaign and we can achieve victory without the resources of a typical campaign, but we still need your help to win.

Surveillance Legislation

Say, why do we not suggest to our legislators a new law giving the FBI and the police the powers to set prostitutes onto the citizens to get the suspicious individuals to fall in love. Then we could be as sure as possible that these odd-balls are not bad actors. And if these targets have a friend, we could give the prostitutes the powers to also “date” the friend, get the two accusing one another, and thereby, for every ten we target, we ought catch at least one spy or mobster? How many such have been missed by our failure to do so?

And, in section 2 of such a law, we could give the CIA power to hire certain professors, so these are wearing two hats, as it were, and are then able to watch the development of the young plants in their crucial phases, looking for any sign of terrorist tendencies, nascent communism or white supremacist? These are fairly inexpensive measures, and one just cannot be too sure now-a-days. We will further authorize any measures at all, from our book on princes, in order to protect these deeds of our intelligence agents from being considered as crimes or in any way brought to light.

Then in section 3 of such a law, we will forbid any looking into these measures if anyone ever figures out what their government has been doing, say, like Snowden with his documents, we will authorizes the agencies to chase them all the way to Moscow to preserve our government secrets and secret methods. Let us, in fact, pass this whole law in secret, and authorize the threatening of anyone who even thinks, say, of having Congress call FBI agents to tell the truth at hearings, or other such measures mortally dangerous to democracy.

You see, just because I am in the CLC does not mean I could not be a legislator in this political climate.

Orlando: The “Only” Obvious Difference between the U.S. and Other Nations?

On NPR news they just said “…and the only obvious difference between us and these other countries is” our loose gun laws. Oh, except that we invented the drug-them-all-for-profit mental health system, that our congress is corrupted by campaign finance bribery and gerrymandering, and, oh yeah, we are so stupid that our public radio radio cannot understand a simple explanation, and oh, 4th, we blame and spy on, demonize, assault and threaten to drug anyone who is not also this stupid and tries to pint out, for example, that antidepressants are rather obviously involved, or at least worth considering as a cause. Again, the two problems coincide, and public shooting began at the same time that psychopharmacology and the prescription drug industry took over the practice of the “mental health professionals.” This is precisely what we are doing that other countries are not doing, and why things like Orlando and Sandy Hook keep happening. Other nations do not worship profit, subjecting education, psychology and law enforcement and the courts to money, and other nations are not so slavishly subject to popular opinion.   And perhaps other nations do not only consider problems when there is blood all over, but listen to intelligence and foresight when people make basic, communicable suggestions.

The right to bear arms has an obvious limit, and there is no reason not to license guns as we do cars, except that we are too stupid to do this correctly. We would have B. A. sociology students judging Clint Eastwood, who would surely be smart enough not to say anything the shrinks do not understand. Everyone can drive a lethal car, and licences are lost due to irrresponsibilities, but it is not clear that guns should be licenced like this. The States can surely license guns as they do cars, since the Second Amendment was never yet selectively incorporated (or, applied to the states as well as to the federal government through the fourteenth Amendment, which applies the liberty of the Fifth Amendment to the states). Again, the CLC policy is to drive a wedge between responsible and irresponsible gun sales and ownership, in every way possible, so that the end result is that responsible but vulnerable people have guns for protection but criminals and irresponsible people do not have guns, even for protection. The difference between a machine gun and a hand gun is about 7 dead compared to 49 dead. We do not allow private ownership of tanks and nukes, and there are some simple but severe weapons that, when we are under attack, as we are, the police may not allow one to own.

And why do we not go straight after these shooters, but give them three hours? Why do the people themselves not attack them, even by throwing things, at an opportune moment, all at once? Perhaps because we rely on guns, which are often useless in the clutch, or worse than useless. And our education is again too stupid and subject to stupid common opinion to cultivate a training for how to act in such a circumstance.

We do not understand our own Second Amendment, which is very difficult due to intentionally vague language, as has been said too by a constitutional scholar, though I have misplaced the name.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed because of the necessity of a well regulated militia to the security of a free state. If the people have their own guns, they will know how to use them, and the militia will be better regulated. When we bear arms, it is in service to the governor, especially when we assemble armed. This is because military power is subject to the civilian, elected leaders. But it does not quite say that we have to be in the militia to bear arms, but that the right of the people to keep and carry arms will not be infringed. It seems that the right is preserved where carrying a machine gun is forbidden, because the person might carry a long gun. But where the bad guys have machine guns, it would be legal to carry a machine gun, theoretically. And of course there is a right of self defense and the defense of others, and though this is not in the Bill of Rights, it would be recognized by combining liberty of the Fifth Amendment with the Second Amendment. This liberty is very difficult. Unlike other nations, too, we are failing at it, in part because we are so stupid.

Marijuana, Microsoft and the FBI

Microsoft, as the BBC informs us, has decided to get into the business of tracking Marijuana businesses, inventing programs that help regulate and for example control seeds, to make sure the seeds are from the legal rather than the “illegal” market. This is a very strange report, since such a program would be a very small part of the Microsoft business. But we have suspected a Monsanto style attempt to control seeds was in the works. Farmers, say, in India, are already having difficulty with the ten thousand year old practice of selecting and saving seeds for the following year, of every kind of plant, due to dominance of hybrids and the money to be made by controlling seeds. By “Illegal” market, I believe the report, taking their language from Microsoft, means nature.

Perhaps Microsoft will also help track the use of chemicals for profit in Marijuana growing, track which are carcinogenic, and who might be growing inorganic weed. Perhaps they will help the legislators figure out how not to encourage growing poisonous weed, as they did tobacco to increase yields once limits were set in acreage or number. Most of all, perhaps they will track where the illegal market leads kids to the heroin dealer, or track where corrupt police use the medicinal law to seize property contrary to the Constitution and divide the profits with organized crime and the municipalities, and even where these two are becoming less distinct.

It is time for a supreme Court decision recognizing that if one grows ones own weed and smokes it, no Constitutional law could possibly be violated. One simply avoids supporting organized crime, and that is the major effect on commerce, though this does prevent the corporate control of nature for profit as well.

In a separate report, the FBI was hiring, but, in addition to other stringent requirements, one may not have smoked weed in the past three years. The FBI, and society in general, have long selected for a certain kind of ignorance, the sort behind such sayings as “could not even pass a drug test.” The FBI has a culture, an in-group that treats pot smoking as a crime, now even above sodomy and gamory, which are allowed, while pot smoking, even as a part of religious exercise, is forbidden. We want the FBI, our FBI, and all law enforcement, to spend one tenth the effort they spend “enforcing the law wherever they see the law violated” to enforcing the law when they see corrupt police and judges giving and taking payoffs and kickbacks to pervert their badges and our courtrooms. Perhaps they might also watch for when corporations like Microsoft track human beings, exposing them to criminals, such as hit men or the Orlando shooter.

In our FBI, we have cultivated a certain kind of ignorance. I believe they have done a fairly good job of weeding out corruption in the FBI hiring process, but they also select for a certain kind of dumb jock. Thought and imagination are selectively excluded. Steve Jobs could not apply to work for the FBI. That is part of why crime is simply out-thinking us lately, not to mention the Russians in internet land. How many artists, say, will be running to apply for the FBI now, or musicians? These types of souls, if not necessarily these particular persons, are a portion of human ability, and they are too free to be able to live according to convention, where everything cultivated is artificial. Their categories sometimes do not match up with the suburban contemporary American categories, but they think of things the dumb jocks cannot even understand when they are directly told. Try calling the FBI to tell them of an obvious scam, say, that the bank is asking for the first five digits of our social security numbers, or that hit men are welcome for a bit of effort to track us using the internet and all modern technology that spies on us for marketing. Do not even try to ask how they expect to find the resources to keep us safe once we have bought such a world. The FBI phone operator will most likely ignore you, but if they pay any attention at all, they are more likely to spy on you because calling the FBI and saying things they do not understand is annoying to them, too much for them, that they are to understand, say, that we are often asked for the last four digits, 5 + 4 = 9 and all our phones are hacked, meaning that the bank is very likely taking kickbacks from someone selling social security numbers.

Jeffrey Rosen on NPR: The Chilling Passage

   Terry Gross has just interviewed Jeffrey Rosen on Fresh Air regarding his new book Louie D. Brandeis, American Prophet. On the air, they read a passage from the opinion of Brandeis in the Olmsted case, the most important privacy case, regarding wiretapping. Brandeis foresaw a time when government or private businesses would be able to watch us through the technology in our homes such as the television and computer. Do they realize that this is being done as I write? That if you query on google, Microsoft, Toshiba, Roku and Magnavox have given themselves the liberty to spy on us in our homes through cameras and microphones even after some are supposedly disabled? From fear of terrorism etc, the FBI is using the private companies, while Congress will not question anyone in hearings, but will take campaign contributions from these companies to pervert the law to allow infinite marketing-spying to occur on the American citizens? I wish Mr. Rosen were here the night Microsoft took a picture of me. It was surreal: a camera came on the screen without my consent and snapped a picture, just like when one snaps a picture from the phone cam. Both the FBI and hit men find such pictures and such surveillance useful.

   Lets get one thing clear first. The purpose of government is “to secure these rights,” in the second sentence of the Declaration. While the Bill of rights directly limits the national government, our government certainly does have the power to pass laws that require the private companies to secure these rights. Congress is just made up of a bunch of thoughtless, ignorant, slavish sissies. Again this started with drug testing, and perhaps directly the marijuana issue. “I will piss in a cup for no man living,” I like to say, because I am a Scotsman. But the thought behind it is this: the law forbidding marijuana is unconstitutional to begin with, and a private company cannot test applicants to see if they violate a law, because a law might just be unconstitutional. The unconstitutionality of the whole circumstance is obvious if one smokes on Sunday while reading scripture, and is, like a Rastifarian, exercising religion, truly and honestly. Only a slave, and not an American, would piss for some employer to see if they violate such a law.

   But the citizens through their elected representatives- are you listening, President Obama?- must require government to compel the companies to secure these rights, through laws that are enforced. The American people just cannot and will not stand up, yet.

   The Chilling passage that Rosen selects from the Olmsted opinion of Brandeis is this:

   “Brandeis noted that at the time of the framing of the Constitution, a far less intrusive search — namely breaking into someone’s home and riffling through their desk drawers to identify a critic of King George III — was the quintessential example of an unreasonable search,” Rosen says, “[Brandeis added] that it was now possible to invade the privacy of people on both ends of a telephone wire. And then … Brandeis looked forward to the age of cyberspace. He said, “Ways may someday be developed — without breaking into desk drawers — to extract papers from home and introduce them in court before a jury… The court should translate the Constitution and recognize that you don’t need a physical trespass to create an unreasonable search.”

Terry Gross adds:

   Rosen says it took decades for the Supreme Court to embrace Brandeis’ insights. In 1967, the high court overruled Olmstead v. United States in the case Katz v. United States, which extended the Fourth Amendment to include all areas where a person “has a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Law enforcement agents were then required to obtain a warrant before wiretapping suspects.

   The whole issue, too, we might remember, does not even begin to address the circumstance where courts would grant all warrants, or grant warrants without cause and call it cause.

   I will say again, Mr. Rosen, that I believe my former fiance was a person who was set on me due to proximity in my education, involuntary or compulsory proximity, to agents of the executive agencies, and that no one will even inquire as to whether what I say might be true. This woman came from a mile and a half from my University, the University of Dallas, and by coincidence I met her up here. By coincidence, I was invited to apply at the CIA after about a year at the university of Dallas, and by coincidence she was the secretary of my best friend at his company where they helped me to print my dissertation and book- all by coincidence. Astonishing, and it is also astonishing that our publications at UD were routinely pre-screened, and no one minded, astonishing that I figured out where the application offer came from and astonishing that that professor’s son now works for the CIA. Astonishing too that I have not had a moment’s peace since that discovery, have seen my hopes for family and career destroyed, etc, etc. Astonishing too that now these people have an interest in my being thought mad, and astonishing too that I have screamed bloody murder to my representatives and my university and nothing is done and no one will even inquire. Astonishing that WordPress blocks my search engine traffic so that all my traffic is word of mouth. Astonishing too that I am now much like Snowden, but I won’t leave. I have never seen a classified document in my life, and what I figure out for myself is my own. Much of this can be proven and demonstrated. Astonishing, though, that my fellow citizens, former teachers and fellow students, no one cares. Want to keep things secret? Don’t set women on people, get them to fall in love with them, then set them between friends so they will accuse one another and you all can glean the info.

   These methods are a bit more advanced than wiretapping. But modern spy theory, and advances in our political theory due to our reading especially of Machiavelli, have made these new powerful means possible, means no doubt to secure the representative democracy that Jefferson and Madison envisioned.

Libertarianism and Peaceful Protest

Martin Luther King Jr saved our nation with the idea of peaceful protest. In the face of blatant injustice, as a Christian minister, he saw from Gandhi and Socrates that unarmed civil disobedience was the only way to win a victory worth having. The movement was concerned primarily with equality, but also secondarily with liberty. What I am suggesting is the conjunction of the idea of peaceful protest and the primary concern with our vanishing American liberty.

   The recognition of equality has now become so well established in popular opinion that its excesses are ignored. The idea that keeps recurring is to join the quest for the re-establishment of liberty with the methods and the idea of Martin Luther King and peaceful protest.

   As a student at a conservative Catholic school. we studied the American founders in an exciting spirit of the recovery of our political tradition. Yet we did not study even Thomas Jefferson very much. The Bill of Rights was generally neglected, and we did not even begin to learn about Martin Luther King.

   King found what may be the only way for Christians to participate in politics rather than withdraw from the world’s injustice to the peace and safety of the monastery. As it turns out, they were a government school, and St. Martin was still considered as J Edgar saw him, as a something closer to a communist than an American, despite King’s constant appeal to the Declaration and the Constitution, and to justice.

   Whether the reader can realize it or not, our nation is facing some changes, and is headed for some serious internal dangers. Armed protest has broken out occasionally, with the blacks in Baltimore and the Whites in Oregon most recently. Violence at political speeches surrounding the presidential campaigns is becoming routine. The reason is that the Americans are missing something, and what appears is then drawn toward the emerging opposites or extremes. Meanwhile, in the face of blatant injustice, our politicians will do nothing, at least until complaints are converted into money and power. We could scream bloody murder, about the most obvious abuses, and its like the whole nation is on Oxy, or has been so dumbed down that it goes in one ear and out the other, like we were speaking to a box of rocks.

   But violent protest strikes those who are innocent, like the officers of the peace who daily risk their lives to protect the citizens, and are thrown into the front lines as in the protest in Baltimore. There is no addressing the hidden powers responsible for the problems, we can only scratch and claw at one another.

   It always amused me, studying politics at that Southern Catholic Conservative School, that they did not appreciate the peaceful protest of St. Martin. They were into this idea like the problem with the Christians is that they are too meek and contemplative, and did appreciate the masculine idea of violence or fighting. Christianity turned mankind away from the body, and what we need to do in modernity here is to recover the concern with the things of the body, with wealth and power, and war in defense of liberty. They of course were thinking of our foreign enemies and the suppression of crime, and there is some truth to these Machiavellian thoughts, if it does not quite come out the way the Machiavellians would have it.

   But it remained an enigma, why they were against St. Martin, or why they did not seem to notice what a blessing the idea of peaceful protest is, especially in domestic but also, when possible, in foreign matters.

   Our Declaration of Independence states that it is our right and duty to rebel against our government when a tyranny is established, or when government fails “to secure these rights.” This idea is behind the advocates of the second Amendment, who see the government seizure of arms, or gun control, as the first step toward tyranny. But armed rebellion in our age will fail, and again, would harm innocents. The officers who work a peaceable assembly, where citizens exercise their constitutional right to petition their government for the redress of grievances, have nothing to do with the billionairs who devised the heroin-oxy scandal or the corrupt politicians who cannot even hold office anymore without “campaign contributions,” which are indistinguishable from legal bribery. We cannot get at the invisible internet billionaires who work to stifle free speech even as I write. Nor can we approach the drug companies that persuaded the doctors to set aside medicine for the practice of legal drug dealing. And as has been said regarding the armed opposition to federal property seizures, they do not have a George Washington to lead a rebellion, and the far right in armed rebellion is in fact the straightest road to tyranny.

   What I am suggesting is that this idea be joined not with armed rebellion, but with peaceful protest. As Martin addressed injustice by taking blows like Jesus, without even striking back, so libertarian protest can proceed, and may only be able to proceed, by following Dr. King in non-violent protest.

   The true revolution is within, within ourselves and in the soul, not the body of our nation. We are sliding toward tyranny, but bloodshed will only make things worse. The way to address this slide is within: we just say no to the profiteering doctors, the corrupt internet companies and the corrupt politicians, beginning with us, the people, or from within. We will simply stand upright. Then we will simply sit down, and not participate, like Rosa Parks and the Birmingham bus boycott. We will step aside from the corrupt world, and only live in the just world. We will leave aside the internet, the cell phones now useless because they are so marketed and hacked, and perhaps, for women, even the public restrooms. Much of modern technology has become useless, because without integrity these things do more harm than good. Then, perhaps the voters get off their opium couch and elect some representatives who are capable of more than selling used cars and lining their own pockets to the great applause of the many, when they look up between their serious pursuits of porn, drugs and video games. We will simply not participate, and we will say why, and keep saying why, whether or our speech is blocked and anyone ever listens, or not.